For those of you that don't know this, Bush has changed his stance, so would call it a Flip-Flop, on the Gay Marriage issue.
Recently he said it should be a state issue. This goes against the Republican party platform. This also goes against what he is on record for stating earlier.
I think this is not just the president changing his tune. I think this will be the message moving forward for some time.
Think about it. There is nothing that mobilizes the religious right more than the thought of homosexuals ruining the sanctity of marriage. Sure a constitutional ammendment would make them happy, but it would kill the issue.
11 states had the referendum to ban same sex marriage on November 2nd. All 11 passed. If the Repubilcans get a constitutional ammendment passed, the issue is no longer a tool to get homophobic right wingers to the polls.
Karl Rove, the evil man that he is, does not want this wedge issue to go away. Why 'fix' it, when it can be 'broken' for the next 10+ years when the other 39 state vote to protect America from the 'Liberal' judges. Lets face it. In America, Guns, God, and (anti)Gay platforms work. Thoughts?
Article comments
1 - boomcrashbaby
Interesting concept. But I heard on the news that Bush has already promised to reintroduce the amendment. Although, I don't recall them saying exactly when, I guess he could wait until 2008, but it seems unlikely, considering several states will have had judicial rulings about equality by then, something conservatives don't agree with.
2 - Mac Diva
Bush has to reward the Christian Right for its support. So, I think the national anti-gay marriage amendment will put in another appearance. I hesitate to say it will not go anywhere next time. Bush's second term, and actually having been elected, mean legislators will rush to grovel at his feet. The gravity attendant to amending the constitution may be lost in the slobbering over his calluses.
3 - MrPC
1.) Typically the Republican Party is the party of States' Rights and this is consistent with that idea
2.) More likely, Bush was armed with polls about the likelihood these state amendments would pass, changed his view because it appears that such state amendments will easily pass in most states (even CA and NY), so why not take the "states rights" issue? It makes him look better to the ignorant political follower, and his agenda IS being served by the states.
Makes sense to me.
4 - Yensid
Ummm.... Republican party for states rights? Except in 2000 when Florida was denied its right to decide and the issue was sent to the Supreme court, right? The Reps only opt for states rights when it goes in their favor. There may have not been a Bush presidency if they would have went the correct route in 2000.
5 - Spear Shaker
Bush is the secular president. www.shakingspears.blogspot.com
6 - P6
Amendments take a long time to be voted on. A technically real push, whether facetious or not, would be under discussion for decades. If it passed Congress it would be put on the ballot as a referendum in every state in the Union. Which would schedule said ballot as appropriate.
Everyone thinks it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing.
But if you just ignore it all as a ploy the damn thing could become law in 10 or so years.
Wicked sneaky.
7 - Mac Diva
Hah! The GOP and state's rights. The very last thing John Ashcroft did before resigning was to lob another bomb at Oregeon's death with dignity law. He has been trying to undermine it for four years. Now, he has asked SCOTUS to go after it. I'll try to blog this later today.
8 - Tom
At least what Ashcroft does ( I disagree with him) is within the law. The thing that drove the desire for states to have ballot measures on gay marriage was what was seen as courts legislating from the bench.
9 - MrPC
My point #2 was my main point. No one seems to be mentioning that, probably because it makes sense and is likely what happened here.
10 - boomcrashbaby
MrPC, while Bush flipflopped right before the election, he has flipflopped again after the election and said he will reintroduce the amendment. So that would make your point 2 erroneous.
I don't know, but I suspect he 'caved in' right before the election, so that those who would not vote for him because of that issue, might then go ahead and vote for him.